You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

So, according to Microsoft, Windows 7 will require 15 GB disk space. I thought it was going to be slimmed down compared to Vista? Looks like the diet pills aren't working. When you consider that a full install of Slackware 12.2 takes around 4.8 GB, and has loads of varied software included, it makes you think, huh? I mean, Notepad and the few other odd'n'sods of basic software you get with a default Windows install can't take up a lot of space. I had no interest in using Vista, and the same applies...

I know I said I didn't want the 64 bit versions of the distros I've got on my laptop on my new desktop, but I've changed my mind. Getting indecisive with the advancing years.
Something strange happened dual-booting Slamd64 and Ubuntu 8.04. If I'd been on Ubuntu then booted into Slamd64, the clock was set back an hour. And my timezone changed to Europe/Guernsey from Europe/London. But that wasn't why I got rid of it. I prefer Debian, that's all.

Got Slamd64 up and running. Same installation procedure as Slackware, except for all the package names of course. To compare it with 32 bit I'd have to reinstall Slackware 12.2, but like I said before I really don't want to duplicate what I've got on my laptop. I can't compare any laptop v desktop benchmarks because of processor and RAM differences.
LFS uses how long it takes to compile binutils as a unit of time. So I thought I might try that: get the source, and just run ./configure and...

As the title implies, I started trying 64 bit distros with possibly the easiest install as far as hardware recognition goes: Ubuntu 8.04, amd64 version. No problems whatsoever. Ubuntu even managed to install a NVidia driver that doesn't ****-up everything. Yes, I'm quite pleased with the result. I could have tried 8.10, but from what I've read, the LTS versions are a safer bet - less flaky. The next candidate for installation will be slamd64. I'll keep Ubuntu, because sometimes I'm in a pointy-clicky...

I was thinking (I do that now and then, even though it makes my brain hurt ). Why don't I install a couple of x86_64 distros on my new desktop? It's got a processor and enough RAM to take any advantage that 64 bit offers (if there is any?). And I've got a few CDs/DVDs, either given away with magazines or burnt by me: slamd64, Debian 5, Ubuntus 8.04 & 8.10, and Fedora 10. So why have I merely duplicated what I've got on my laptop? That, then, is my project for this weekend: to boldly go where...